The row for __cpp_lib_array_constexpr should say that the macro is defined by <array> as well, since it changes member functions of std::array.
On 3 August 2016 at 17:56, Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: > The row for __cpp_lib_not_fn says the header is <function> which should be > <functional> > > The row for __cpp_lib_lock_guard_variadic says the header is <thread> but > lock_guard is defined in <mutex> > > > On 22 July 2016 at 20:06, Nelson, Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Many thanks to Richard and Jonathan for their recent suggestions. >> >> I have posted a new draft: >> >> http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21oulu/SG10/sd-6.html#recs.cpp17 >> >> It reflects most of the recent discussion. (I am not yet assuming we have >> reached consensus about any/optional.) >> >> I have also done quite a bit of editorial work. >> >> One of the most significant changes is that I deleted most of the >> editorial >> question marks indicating uncertainty about a proposal, calling attention >> for >> review. What I'd like people to do is take a close look at the whole of >> the >> C++17 content. (The insertion indications are relative to the posted SD-6, >> so everything from Jacksonville and Oulu is considered new.) >> >> What I have done instead is add an indication for every proposed macro for >> which we don't yet have an example -- which is to say, for which we don't >> yet have a rationale. I'd really like to get more examples -- but I don't >> plan to do all the work of inventing them myself. >> >> -- >> Clark Nelson Chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard committee) >> Intel Corporation Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing) >> [email protected] Chair, CPLEX (C SG for parallel language >> extensions) >> _______________________________________________ >> Features mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features >> > >
_______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
